More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 15:10 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

DAVID: Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

dhw: So they cannot know the facts. “Yes” would have been the short answer.

They can do it without your desired facts!!!

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

DAVID: Not answered. Which comes first?

dhw: Genetic change is what creates new forms. As the genes change, the forms change. There is no first or second!

DAVID: New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

dhw: I agreed that loss could result in change – for instance, an animal might live underground, lose its sight and enhance its hearing – but I do not agree that that constitutes an “advance”.

Wow! Loss of sight is an advance fitting conditions. Loss of genes cause change.

dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

dhw: If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

Yo have been educated, but find the news facts unacceptable to your prejudices.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution

DAVID: No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

dhw: I have no idea why you think any of my theistic theories entail a vengeful God. Where did you get that from? What I do not like has nothing to do with a particular form of God, but is your theory that has an all-powerful God, whose only goal is to produce humans plus food, busying himself designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

I can't fulfill your illogical request, but I admit I made an unclear reference. I think your early religious training revealed a vengeful warlike God, the same one I knew, but with my adult reading, I discovered a different God I accept.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum